Informed Consent In Prisons

Elements of the Nuremberg code of 1947 includes a 10-point statement of ethical principles created to prevent future abuse of human subjects. As during the time Japan and Nazi Germany subjected human beings to torturous experiments in order to obtain data that might prove useful in their war effort (Fischer, 2006). This document is the foundation for human rights when it comes to medical experimentation worldwide. The most important principle above all is to obtain an informed consent. An informed consent explains in depth all potential benefits and risks. The men who participated in the Tuskegee Study were not provided with an informed consent. A study had been done already on the Norwegian men, which made it clear

The central ethical conflicts of the Clara’s case are several infringements committed regarding human rights in human experimentation. According to the American Psychological Association Code of Ethics [APA] (2010) experiments such as Clara would have violated several sections from standard 8: 8.01 (obtaining institutional approval), 8.02 (participants’ informed consent), 8.04 (client/patient, student, and subordinate respect to continue in research), 8.07 (deception in research), and 8.09 (humane care). Section 8.01 indicates that researchers must obtain approval prior

Throughout the history of psychological studies unprincipled violations have constructed ethical standards that are essential in today’s research. These moral dilemmas created established professional and federal standards for performing research with human and animal participants, known as, psychological ethical codes. The Tuskegee syphilis study and the Stanford prison experiment highlighted a psychological study without proper patients’ consent and appropriate treatment, resulting in a research disaster with unethical incidents.

The Doctor and Patient relationship aspect of Medicine has changed drastically in the last twenty years. It has evolved from paternalism (the doctor makes the decision for the patient) to shared decision making where the patient is considered an equal partner in his/her own health related decisions. Informed consent is the cornerstone for this view. When a patient or a research subject makes an autonomous decision after understanding, the risks and benefits involved with the decision is Informed consent. Complete Informed consent covers the following components: competency, disclosure, comprehension and voluntary. Competency refers to the requirement for the individual to be of legal age and be mentally competent to understand the process.

Tuskegee – The doctors violated this principle by not informing the study subjects of the details of the study itself. The subjects were informed they were going to be treated for “bad blood” (CDC, 2015). At the time “bad blood” could have meant syphilis or it could have meant anemia or fatigue. None of the patients received treatment to cure their illness. Additionally, none were ever informed that they were in fact part of a study to document how syphilis progresses when left untreated. These were autonomous men who had vital information withheld from them while being subjects in a research study.

Whilst deception played a huge role in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, many are aware that deception compromises the integrity of research study. Malicious violations of human rights have transpired throughout American history titles under the name research. Under those past circumstances, there have been some discoveries that helped propel mankind’s survival and advanced knowledge. These discoveries do not validate the cruelties that unprivileged people like African Americans endured. Overall, it should be mandatory for research studies to be ethical and not undermine the values and dignity of humanity.

An informed consent is the sovereign act by the patient or a research subject to authorize a healthcare professional to perform a medical procedure. It means that patients must be briefed on all the goals of the procedure, the methods to be used by the physician and all the risks that they might be subjected to while undergoing therapies/treatments. De Bord (2014), defines informed consent as “Informed consent is the process by which the treating health care provider discloses appropriate information to a competent patient so that the patient may make a voluntary choice to accept or refuse treatment” (as cited in Appelbaum, 2007). In this paper, I will argue that Jay Katz’s claim for the lack of genuine informed consent in healthcare field is firm by demonstrating and buttressing his claim. I will also pinpoint how Jay Katz’s argument is consistent with the medical professionals’ code of ethics

In the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, doctors examined a group of black men who were diagnosed with syphilis in order to follow physical manifestations that arise over the course of the disease. These researchers told the men that they would receive free medical treatment; however, there were numerous ethical violations that would be of great concern today. First, these men were never told they had syphilis, so they didn’t know that they were dealing with a disease. Furthermore, during the study, penicillin came out as the first antibiotic and as a cure for syphilis. Yet, these patients were not treated for their disease, which resulted in deteriorating physical conditions. Both of these ethical violations bring up the issue of informed consent.

They are challenged by substandard working conditions and tension between reasonable medical practices and prison rules and culture. “Principles of ethics regarding beneficence, non-maleficence, and respect for the rights and dignity of all patients have led international and national professional organizations to affirm that physicians are ethically obligated to refrain from countenancing, condoning or degrading treatment” (Metzner and Fellner,jaapl.org). Prison rules for isolated prisoners restrict the quality, quantity and nature of mental health services that the prisoners are allowed to receive, which then forces physicians into an ethical dilemma of how to properly treat these inmates. “In recent years, physicians have increasingly confronted a new challenge: the prolonged solitary confinement of prisoners with serious mental illness, a corrections practice that has become prevalent despite the psychological harm is can cause”(Metzner and Fellner, jaapl.org). According to the authors, physicians are in ethical conflicts based on the fact that they continually perform patient rounds with mentally ill inmates, however, by not saying anything about the complications that this type of confinement causes, they too may be contributing to the continuation of harm. Studies along with the author’s clinical experience reveal that up to 19 percent of prisoners have psychiatric disorders resulting

The three Belmont Principles (respect for persons, beneficence, and justice) were violated during the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. For example, the researchers violated the respect for person’s principle, because roughly 600 African-American men were recruited without voluntary informed consent. The researchers also did not ensure that participants understood that enrolling in the research is voluntary and that they are free to withdrawn from the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. The men were pressured to participate due to implied threats (coercion) and excessive compensation (undue influence). The beneficence principle was likewise violated by the Tuskegee Study in that the researchers did not obliged to give forethought

At the beginning of the past century, many human subjects in researches were unethical. Even though, researches are inevitable and important to make contributions in the field of research, human subjects should be respected. The two most popular examples of historically harmful research are the Nazi Medical War Crime on unwilling human subject and the Syphilis Study at Tuskegee. This essay will focus on the Tuskegee study.

In some cases, inmates are not informed of the risks that could occur during an experiment. In 1951 and 1974, the University of Pennsylvania conducted a research study that, “deliberately exposed prisoners to dangerous and toxic substances without informing them of the attendant risks” (Talvi). As a result, many complained of psychological trauma and physical illness. Usually, scientists are more consumed with their achievements in medicine than with the lifelong effects it could have on individuals. The ex-prisoners, “now in their fifties and sixties...suffer from breathing problems, gynecological complications, and all manner of skin rashes and infections” as a result of medical experimentation (Talvi). These incarcerated people would not have given consent to be experimented on if they knew what the research fully consisted of. I believe that it is highly important for people to advise their subjects of all the possible risks of a study, so it does not lead to unfortunate circumstances, like lawsuits for the experimenter or psychological trauma for the

Most U.S. prisons today are more focused on punishment than rehabilitation. After all, a prison in America is not a pleasant place to be. The environment of most prisons is tough and violent which can lead inmates to develop aggressive behaviors. A study called the Stanford Prison Experiment showed that prisoners without any mental illness can end up developing one during their time in prison (Benson). In addition, every year, around 217,000 prisoners in America are raped (McElwee). The conditions inside prisons can be damaging to inmates in all sorts of ways.

Medical experimentation without consent has been an issue of debate in the US over the past few years, namely on prisoners who have no way to defend themselves against the act. In 1948, Americans ran a syphilis drug trial on Guatemalan prisoners without their consent. This issue obviously poses major ethical dilemmas and even legal implications. It is my opinion that medical experimentation without consent is a morally atrocious act and should never be done.

This paper will not only focus on the breach of ethical conduct of human experimentation but also introduce different views from Henry Beecher and Jay Katz about the ethics in human research. One of the human experimentation study that breach ethical conduct is the Tuskegee syphilis study, which was conducted in 1932 in Macon County, Alabama. Medical researcher recruited African American male subjects diagnosed with syphilis, they targeted people from poor and rural counties. The main purpose of the study was to acquire information about the natural history of untreated syphilis. The United States public health service “initiated a program to diagnose and treat 10, 000 African American for syphilis “1(pg 212). But unfortunately they didn’t have enough money for the treatments.